Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/63

 WINTEB V. SWINBUBNJB!, e^ �WiHTEB V. SwiNBUBNE and others. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Wisconsin. July 8, 1881.) �L JimisDicTioN— Cheditors' Bill— Dechee in Ajdmibaltt. �The circuit court of the United States bas not jurisdiction to entertaia a creditor's bill flied in that court, and based on a judgment or decree in admi- ralty recovered in the district court, all the parties to the bill being citizens of the same state. �Jurisdiction in such a case is not maintainable on the ground that the bill in the circuit court is ancillary to the judgment or decree in the district court; nor is the case one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, so as to give the court jurisdiction under the flrst clause of the flrst section of the removal act of March 3, 1»75. �In Bquity. �Winfield Smith, for complainant. �George D. Van Dyke, for defendants. �Dyeb, d. J. In effect, this is an application for an attaehment of certain of the defendants for contempt, because of their refusai to submit to examination, on oath, before a master, pursuant to an interlooutory decree heretofore entered in this cause. �It appears that in 1880 a money decree was recovered against the defendants for the sum of $2,148.71, in the district court of the United States for this district, in a cause of collision in admiralty, wherein the present complainant was libellant and the defendants were respondents. There was no appeal to the circuit court, and the decree in the district court became final. Execution was issued thereon and was returned nulla bona. Thereupon the libellant in that case and complainant here, filed the present creditors' bill in the circuit court to reaeh assets, effects, and equitable interests of the defendants in satisfaction of the decree in the district court. The defendants not appearing, the usual orders were duly entered, refer- ring the case to a master to appoint a receiver of the property, things in action, and effects of the defendants, and requiring the defendants to make conveyances to the receiver, and to submit to examination on oath befol-e the master. On the return-day of the master's sum- mons, the defendants appeared specially, and by their counsel objected to the proceedings as not withia the jurisdiction of the court, and declined to be swom and examined. Wherenpon the record was certified to the court for its action thereon, and argument bas been had on the question of jurisdiction. �The grounds of objection to jurisdiction are that both the com- v.8,no.2— 4 ��� �